User talk:Bpothier

Contents

Whoa! You are awesome. I was about to use it as a learning experience, but that would probably have meant that there would have been a few new posts to admin requests. Thanks! lcarsos (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making the list. I only found your admin page comment *after* already creating & tagging your lsit of posts, so if someone doesn't like the name, they can always change it. I was poking through the archives afterwards and saw several other instances, but they haven't been posted yet. No luck in finding an "official" un-official name for Ponytail.. --B. P. (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Looked like shades of "blue-grey"... Could go either way I guess... --B. P. (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What? Is grey not a color? As a fellow chromat-atypical (qv my choice of, ahem, colors, on my user page) I interpreted the category as those comics that were not strictly bitonal (ignoring phenomena such as antialiasing). Of course, I'm also of the rather unusual stripe that thinks that black and white are colors, too, but drawing the line there would result in every comic necessarily being in that category (except, I suppose, 404) rendering it truly all-encompasing-but-useless. Anyway, don't mind my cheekiness; I'm just reveling in the free time of no longer imposing death sentences to spam-generating users (thank you for stepping in, lcarsos!} and couldn't resist chiming in on a little, um, colorful peeve of mine. YMMV. -- IronyChef (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I'm behind the idea of deprecating the explain template... if anything, I'd prefer to see us move more toward that... can we hold off/revert until a discussion is had? -- IronyChef (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion about the explain template on its talk page on 18 September, a full month and a half ago. And no one said anything about it. I believe that this qualifies as a discussion (or lack thereof) being had and a general consensus being reached. I think B.P.'s actions are a huge step forward.

My argument, in short, I think it's completely useless when we have redirects for the number and name of a comic to the page people want. In fact {{explain|1124}} is 7 characters more (and requires use of shift) than simply using [[1124]]. The point of a template is to make something easier, rather than more complicated. Also, template usage, requires looking up the template, parsing the mark-up, parsing the variables passed, and creating a link; whereas, creating an intra-wiki link merely surrounds the text in an anchor tag, which is significantly less process intensive.

Could we hold off on making new categories? There comes a point when categories start to break down organization because there's so damn many of them. I'm sure there's plenty of existing pages that haven't been completely categorized already. Also, try not to make a new category when you see three or four pages share a feature. I don't think scones or steve make up a particularly significant part of XKCD. Davidy22(talk) 12:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Got on a category creating spreee I guess after seeing multiple recently updated comics with same keyword. I think the Unix one should be justifiable though. --B. P. (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Tools

It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.